Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 24

Thread: State of the Union

  1. #10
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: State of the Union

    liked his line when he said he wanted judges who rule by the law and not the gavel and that interpret the constitution as it is written. Then to imply that the dems are unfairly holding up his nominations because they don't want judges to interpret the constitution and rule by the law.

    Bullshit rhetoric. You think judges don't want to uphold the Constitution--that which they've sworn to do? What he's really saying is he wants judges to think like him and if they don't then they're not upholding the constitution. An example of one of those things that if you repeat it long enough, people will believe you.

    Clone we agree on this. Maybe I said it in a confusing way.

    As for the line item veto, its not unconstitutional for state governors so why would it be for the pres. If it is then lets amend the constitution.

  2. #11
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    liked his line when he said he wanted judges who rule by the law and not the gavel and that interpret the constitution as it is written. Then to imply that the dems are unfairly holding up his nominations because they don't want judges to interpret the constitution and rule by the law.

    Bullshit rhetoric. You think judges don't want to uphold the Constitution--that which they've sworn to do? What he's really saying is he wants judges to think like him and if they don't then they're not upholding the constitution. An example of one of those things that if you repeat it long enough, people will believe you.

    Clone we agree on this. Maybe I said it in a confusing way.

    As for the line item veto, its not unconstitutional for state governors so why would it be for the pres. If it is then lets amend the constitution.
    Item line vetos are different for the states and the feds because they are different constitutions. Also, historically, state constitutions see a lot more changes (and typically are easier to change--in Colorado all we have to do is vote on a referendum). Historically, we are loathe to change the U.S. constitution, and it's rather difficult because, as I'm sure you know, most of the states have to agree to it. But it can be done.

  3. #12

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by matclone View Post
    Skipster, you would lie to a dog, just so you could pontificate (and have someone listen), so to give yourself that grandiose feeling that you alone understand the secret to all universal truths.

    Completely missed the point of my gorilla analogy, eh?
    I understand the point of the gorilla analogy, but I would rather keep my 800-pound gorilla instead of having a 1,000-pound gorilla. Notice that I said that the current system is a racket and is not the best way to go.

    For evidence of that, just read this article about how the California legislature voted down a proposal to turn to government-run health care:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ck=1&cset=true

    "Sam Aanestad, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from Grass Valley, said: "I don't think the status quo is so bad that we need to risk everything we've done to make medicine in California about the highest standard of care in the world.""

    As for your fixation with calling me a liar, please point out what part of my post to which you responded was a lie:

    I certainly don't think the current health insurance racket is the best way to go. But, it certainly is better than any form of government healthcare -- and has better doctor-patient relationship. My mother-in-law's brother in Canada coudln't get in to see the doctor when he had chest pains because his portion of the alphabet wasn't allowed to see the doctor for another 8 months. Or, if you like American examples, check out Walter Reed Medical Center, which is totally government-run. The conditions there are less than ideal.

    Ignoring the 800-pound in the room? Not hardly.


    If you can prove to me that there is a lie in that post, I will most certainly apologize and afford you the highest level of credibility. However, if you can not prove that there is a lie in that post, you have proven to this board that you discriminate based on who the poster is and judge people by name or past posts and not by what they write.

  4. #13

    Default Re: State of the Union

    bush microphone hidden in jacket

  5. #14
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by skipster View Post
    please point out what part of my post to which you responded was a lie:
    Here is your lie I was referring to, scumbag:

    My mother-in-law's brother in Canada coudln't get in to see the doctor when he had chest pains because his portion of the alphabet wasn't allowed to see the doctor for another 8 months.

  6. #15

    Default Re: State of the Union

    The problem with the Canadian health system is not the system, it is the location. Because all the Canadian doctors can go over the border to America, earn a lot more, and have almost no risk of malpractice lawsuits.

    America is well known for having by far the most costly health system, and it provides only mediocre results. The world health organization reports on health care systems every year. The plus side of the American health system is that they do well in treating cancer and some other specialized health issues. The down side is nearly everything else. The 2000 World Health report has USA ranked 37th in the world. Here are the rankings and a link to the report: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html . If you Google around, you can probably find a more up-to-date ranking.

    Being an American living overseas, it is blatantly obvious just how pathetic the American system is. The American system is design to make doctors rich: it is not designed to help people. In Australia, they have a two tier system: a public health system that anybody can use at very little cost, and a private system, for those who want better health care and are willing to pay extra for it. The Australian system works well for me.

    I've spoken to several people who have had health treatment in western europe, Australia, Japan, and Singapore, and none have ever had anything good to say about the American health care system. The only people I ever hear who are saying that government based health care is bad seem to be those who have never travelled to countries that have such systems and actually tried it.
    Last edited by contini; 01-30-2008 at 05:54 PM.

  7. #16
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by contini View Post
    The problem with the Canadian health system is not the system, it is the location.
    I'm not sure a problem has been established. To my knowledge, there is not a movement to reform Canada's health care system. But I could be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by contini
    In Australia, they have a two tier system: a public health system that anybody can use at very little cost, and a private system, for those who want better health care and are willing to pay extra for it. The Australian system works well for me.
    That's how they do it in Holland too, based on a presentation I heard in Amersterdam a few years ago. In this respect the Aussie and Dutch systems are different than Canada.

  8. #17

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Even though skipster may be exaggerating, there is some degree of truth about waiting times for health care in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...stems_compared
    The waiting times are consistently pointed out as arguments against the Canadian health care system. My argument was that the waiting times are due to lack of doctors, since many Canadian doctors practice in America, where they can earn a lot more. Thus, the problem is the proximity, not the system itself.

    Documentary evidence of Canadian doctors practicing in America: http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/...or-better.html
    Last edited by contini; 01-30-2008 at 06:26 PM.

  9. #18
    Olympic Champ therick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    2,052

    Default Re: State of the Union

    Quote Originally Posted by matclone View Post
    Here is your lie I was referring to, scumbag:

    My mother-in-law's brother in Canada coudln't get in to see the doctor when he had chest pains because his portion of the alphabet wasn't allowed to see the doctor for another 8 months.
    Why do you have to resort to name calling? It's really not needed and yet you seem to do it with much more frequency lately.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •